This year on Jerusalem 

This year on Jerusalem 

Context

India’s vote at the UN is in line with its leading power ambitions, and not just a legacy of nonalignment

India’s new foreign policy strategic doctrine

The goal is to transform India from being a ‘balancing power’ to a ‘leading power’ on the international stage

India’s stand

India’s Jerusalem vote can be interpreted as a continuing adherence to its traditional policy of nonalignment. But a more appropriate interpretation of the vote is possible within the framework of India’s leading power ambitions. To do that, we need to also see the vote in conjunction with two other votes in the recent past at the UN

1. Support to Mauritius: The first was in June, when India supported a move by Mauritius to take its sovereignty claims over the British-controlled Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), against the wishes of the U.S
2. Winning a seat at ICJ: The second was in November when India won a seat on the ICJ, in spite of active opposition from the U.S.

Options before India

India had the following options, other than what it finally chose, while voting for UNGA resolution,

• Vote against the resolution: If India had voted against the resolution, it would have ended up in the company of seven countries that joined the U.S. and Israel. These are Guatemala, Honduras, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Togo, the combined population of which roughly equals the population of Delhi
• Abstain the resolution: The second option was abstaining, along with Antigua-Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Benin, Canada, Cameroon, Croatia, Haiti, etc

Why abstaining from the vote was not an option?

India is aspiring to be a ‘leading power’, hence, it must be more forthright and articulate in expressing its position on issues confronting the world. As it did, for instance, by speaking up on the Belt and Road Initiative. So, abstaining was not an attractive option for an aspiring leading power

Advantages of voting in favor

Voting for the resolution put India in the company of the overwhelming majority of the world. It kept India in the company of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), groupings that India continues to value under the present government

India has far more significant interests in West Asian peace and stability than many of these countries

Chagos archipelago vote

Mauritius wanted the UNGA to request the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on its sovereignty claim over archipelago as it considers it as an unfinished agenda of decolonisation. The U.S. recognises U.K. sovereignty over the territory and they jointly operate the Diego Garcia military base there. India voted in support of the resolution, overcoming the fear of a bilateral dispute being taken to ICJ

• The resolution was passed with 94 countries voting in favour, 15 against and 65 abstaining

ICJ contest

In November, the U.S. supported the U.K. in its contest against India for an ICJ seat, as did all other permanent members of the Security Council

• India stood its ground and won the day as the UNGA overwhelmingly supported it, forcing other permanent members to limit their support to the U.K., which finally withdrew its candidate. It is not difficult to draw a link between the two votes

Leading power ambitions are not realised by declaring unquestioning allegiance to anyone.

Conclusion

Three UNGA votes over six months are more about multilateral diplomacy coming of age. India can be great friends with the U.S. and Israel and still disagree with them on some issues